Saturday, February 17, 2018

Ethno-Nationalism, if possible, is the Ideal Form of Political Organization

Polish Patriots on the March

It’s easy to demonstrate that Ethno-Nationalism is the soundest foundation for political organization. Granted, not every nation can be ethno-centric due to complexities of history. This is especially true of nations created by imperialists who mixed together various peoples and cultures through invasions and slave trade. Latin American nations didn’t rise organically from the soil of natives. Rather, they are the products of Hispanic and Portuguese invasions followed by African slave trade and mass immigration from Europe and even Asia. As such, there isn’t much meaning in what it is to be ‘Colombian’, ‘Venezuelan’, or ‘Costa Rican’. Too much of native cultures was wiped out, and too much of European identity was mixed and diluted. In the case of Indonesia, it’s essentially an end-product of Dutch colonialism. When the Dutch were finally driven out, the territories they’d held just became the nation-state of Indonesia. While Indonesia has peoples with deep cultural roots, the idea of ‘Indonesian’ is not ethno-nationalist since the nation is made of many notable and sizable ethnic groups. Islam became so important because it was one of the few glues that held diverse ethnic groups together. If most Indonesians have one thing in common, it is their faith. African nations are especially problematic. Prior to European invasion, the Dark Continent was home to literally thousands of tribes. The current African nations are NOT the organic political expressions of African themselves but the end-result of territories divided among the Europeans.

So, minus major political and demographic upheavals, ethno-nationalism simply isn’t viable in many parts of the world. The most that peoples in such nations can hope for is to get along in the spirit of tolerance, cooperation, and mutual respect in absence of genuine trust among diverse peoples.
If the people at least have share common religion, language, and/or legal code, it is generally more functional than if they’re divided even among those lines. In diverse nations, democracy usually means every group voting along ethnic lines. When this leads to recriminations and insurmountable tensions, such entities can only be held together by iron rule, which is the case in most Arab nations. Introduction of democracy in Iraq & Egypt and experimentation with reforms in Syria only led to more violence and even bloody civil wars that became easy to game by outsider powers.
Given the reality of the world, it isn’t possible to have ethno-nationalism for every people. But for those who have it, they should consider it the greatest blessing. Ethno-nationalism can be nearly homogeneous, but it can exist in a healthy form even in a diverse nation as long as it has a solid majority AND as long as the majority constitute the ruling elites. This is true of Israel where Jews are 80% of the population(which means there is a sizable Arab minority) and control the government, culture, and economy. Jewishness is secure and dominant. Also, the Arab population in Israel, though none-too-happy, tend to be peaceful because they are treated reasonably well by the Jews. (Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank are another story.) Turkey, like Israel, manages to function as an ethno-state because it is majority Turk and Turks comprise the ruling elites of the nation.

Perhaps, if Iraq had originally been ruled by the Shia population, it could have been like Israel. The main tension in Iraq owed to it being majority Shia but being ruled by the Sunni minority. Likewise, tensions in Syria owe to it being a majority Sunni Arab nation ruled by an Alawite minority. There aren’t enough Alawites in Syria for it to be an ethno-nationalist state, so the ruling elites of Syria have favored secular modernism and Iron Tolerance to ensure continued Alawite dominance over Sunnis and others. Now, would such problems exist if Syria were 100% Alawite or 100% Sunni Arab? Of course not. It just goes to show homogeneous ethno-nationalism is best for peace and stability.
But for some nations, it’s simply not an option due to accidents of history. It’s possible for a diverse nation to crack up and form more stable homogeneous nations, but it isn’t always easy to do. It’s relatively easy if one ethnic group mostly happens to be territory A while another group is mostly in territory B. Then, it can amicably separate like Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia. And some parts of Yugoslavia broke away with relative ease. But things got bloody in Bosnia because Croatians, Serbs, and Muslims were intermixed all over the territory. Even now, the problems haven't been totally resolved.

Anyway, to demonstrate why ethno-nationalism works best, consider the following examples.

Take Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. Israel is ethno-nationalist even though it has a sizable Arab population. Israel supports a solid Jewish majority, healthy natal trends for Jews, and Jewish patriotism as the soul of the nation.
Jordan is 80% Palestinian. It’s ruled by ‘Jordanians’, but they are Arabs who are racially the same as Palestinians. Indeed, the difference between ‘Jordanian’ and ‘Palestinian’ is territorial/incidental than ethnic/historical; those designations owe more to Europeans making maps than natives making tribal distinctions. At any rate, Jordan is 100% Arab nation. Lebanon is more complicated due to Shia, Sunni, and Christian divisions. Still, most of the population is Arabic. (The modern history of Lebanon is a useful illustration of how rising diversity can lead to more tensions, civil war, and interference by foreign powers. The conflicts among Christians, Sunnis, Shia, and Palestinian exiles once turned the entire nation into a bloody war zone, and many observers worried the madness would never cease, that is until Syrians moved in to restore order. Ironically, what happened to Lebanon in the 1980s replayed itself on a much larger scale in Syria itself.)
Anyway, despite the existing internal divisions of the three nations(most problematic in Lebanon), each still manages to keep order and stability within its borders. Israeli is for Israelis, Jordan is for Jordanians/Palestinians, and Lebanon is for Lebanese, be they Christian, Sunni, or Shia. Whatever problems may exist inside the three nations, they are agreed upon the borders that separate one from the other, and that is the basis for the current peace.

Now, would it improve matters IF Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan were unified into a single bigger nation? Who in his right mind would think the dynamics of politics, culture, and society of this multi-national state will work better than if the three nations had remained separate?
Jews have enough problems with the Arab minority in Israel. Would they want to deal with many more Arabs in the bigger multi-national state who will constitute a majority population over the Jews? And how will the Arabs feel about the immense wealth and influence controlled by Jews? As long as Jews are in Israel, Jewish money is Jewish business and none of Arab's business. But if Israel were to unite with Lebanon and Jordan into a single nation, disproportionate Jewish wealth will become a contentious political issue for the Arab majority that will demand a big chunk of it, just like the black majority in South Africa keep demanding a bigger share of the economic pie, much of which is still in the hands of whites. And in every election, the various groups in the Israelebajordan will just vote along racial, tribal, and sectarian lines than ponder political issues in terms of right and wrong. Indeed, such tribalism is already a problem in Israel and Lebanon. If they were to merge into one nation and then also include Jordan, tribal tensions will be exacerbated many times over. So, even if Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon are not ideal homogenous ethno-nation-states, they still have some semblance of meaningful identity and history in their current manifestations. This would be totally lost if the three nations were to merge into one in the spirit of greater Diversity and Tolerance.

Next, consider Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. All three ethno-nation-states used to be part of Indochina under French rule. Today, they are three separate nations. For the most part, they get along in peace. There used to be bloody conflicts, especially between Vietnam and Cambodia, but the wars are over, and peace prevails among the three nations. Peace is nice.

Now, who in his right mind would argue that things would improve if Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were to merge into a nation called New Indochina? Of course, it will just lead to political tensions, cultural conflicts, and social friction. Vietnamese would look upon their Cambodian and Laotian co-nationals as inferior and backward, Laotians wouldn’t have much in common with Cambodians, and Cambodians would resent the domination of the Vietnamese majority. New tensions could easily flare up, like between Uighurs and invasive Han Chinese in Xianjiang. Things would be much better if Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia remained separate. Then, each people can feel secure in their own nationhood, respect each other as neighbors, and trade with one another.

Next, consider Yugoslavia. What was the catalyst for its breakup into separate nations? Because other ethnic groups resented the Serbian-dominant central government in Belgrade. Also, the idea of Yugoslavia had been imposed on the people there by bigger powers. Granted, some of the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia were similar to one another, but like the division between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, historical resentments made things difficult among some groups, especially between Serbians and Croatians, who with the backing of Germans, had massacred 250,000 Serbians in WWII. As for the Muslims, they were converts who'd collaborated with Turks during Ottoman rule, and this was bound to lead to bad blood. As for Kosovo, it transformed from the cradle of Serbian civilization to Muslim territory when lots of Albanians were allowed to migrate there under Ottoman rule. So, the lesson of Yugoslavian/Balkan history is diversity is one big headache, especially if it’s imposed on a people by foreign domination. But then, most of Diversity in the world is due to imperialism.
By the way, where did WWI originate? Of course, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire that stifled ethno-national aspirations of peoples who wanted to be free of Imperial Diversity.

Next, we all know Czechs and Slovaks decided to go separate ways. Thus, Czechoslovakia amicably divided into Czech Republic and Slovakia, and both nations seem to be happy as homogeneous ethno-nation-states. Again, it illustrates that the ethno-nation-state is the most ideal form of political organization in terms of cohesion, unity, and stability.

For the next thought experiment, consider Japan, Korea, and Manchuria(now part of China but, for the sake of argument, considered separately here). Japan and Korea are ethno-nation-states. Manchuria is part of China that is essentially a Han ethno-nation-state. Now, who in his right mind would argue that things will be better if Manchuria, Korea, and Japan were to ditch their ethno-nation-state models and merge into a single multi-national entity called New Asia? Would politics run smoother in New Asia made up of Manchurians, Koreans, and Japanese as co-nationals? Would social trust go up? Would there be more national unity and solidarity? Would the peoples of New Asia become more civic-minded and more responsible citizens? Historical experience tells us that the experiment will be a disaster.

After all, who bemoans the passing of the Soviet Empire, the biggest multi-national-state that ever existed? Upon its collapse, ethno-nationalism became the template for all the liberated peoples: Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Moldovans, Armenians, Azerbaijans, Georgians, and etc. And these peoples don’t want to revert to the Soviet multi-national model.

Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union was welcomed by the West. The emancipation and emergence of ethno-nation-states from the rubble of communism were seen as a good thing.

Then, just how did ethno-nationalism become such a dirty word? It was because Jewish globalists gained dominance in the US and wanted hegemony over the world. From the globo-hegemonic perspective, patriotic ethno-nationalism is the toughest barrier against globalist takeover. So, while ethno-nationalism was an effective, indeed invaluable, tool in the weakening of the USSR and Yugoslavia, it came to be problematic as an obstacle to Anglo-Zionist globalist imperialism. Consider the ethno-nationalist determination of Poland and Hungary that defies the globalist entity that is the EU. Globalists hate those two nations that operate on the principle of ethno-nationalism to keep what is demographically, culturally, and territorially theirs.

An empire will exploit the nationalism, nascent or deep-rooted, of a certain people against a rival empire or great power. It’s like, even as globalists denounce the ethno-nationalism of Poland and Hungary, they gleefully support the ethno-nationalism of Ukrainians(even among Neo-Nazis) as an effective weapon against Russia. But at the same time, globalists seek to weaken nationalism among Ukrainians in relation to the West. Similarly, the Japanese imperialists encouraged Manchurian separatism & nationalism against the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans, but they also weakened it in relation to Japanese interests. ‘Emperor’ Puyi was used as a puppet-patriot, or puppatriot.

The world would have been so much better if the US and EU hadn’t embarked on Diversity. The great opportunity in the Golden Age of Nationalism was lost due to change in American and European immigration policy. After WWII, nationalism became vogue either as the dream of every people(living under imperialist rule) OR as safe haven for expelled imperialists. So, Algerians, Vietnamese, Kenyans, and Cubans struggled for national independence from imperialism and achieved their goals. And with the fall of empires, Europeans returned to their mother countries. Imperial powers were reduced to nation-states once again. French empire was gone and there was only the French nation. British empire was gone and there was only the British nation. Fall of empires meant that the world would be composed of sovereign & independent nations. In time, Africans, Asians, and Arabs regained ownership and control over their own territories, some more soundly conceived and organized than others. And having lost their empires, the Brits, French, Dutch, and other Europeans had nowhere to go but back to their motherlands that welcomed their blood kin with open arms. It was truly the Golden Age of Nationalism, and almost all peoples around the world were optimistic in their patriotism.

And even though the US and USSR locked horns as new empires, both upheld the ideal of nationalism and condemned the other side as the ‘real imperialist’. If ever they admitted to presiding over an empire, it was deemed a necessary evil to stave off the hegemonic ambitions of the Other power that was deemed far worse. Indeed, both empires claimed to lend support to peoples around the world for the sake of national liberation from the Other imperialist power. So, the Soviets backed Vietnamese patriots against the French and American imperialists. And the US condemned Soviet imperialist crushing of Hungarian, Polish, and Czechoslovakian ethno-national aspirations.

But what messed up the ideal of universal nationalism, the hope of national sovereignty for every people? Immigration and globalism. If Europe and the US had kept their gates shut to non-whites, then non-whites would have remained patriotic and invested their smarts & energies toward developing their own nations. Everyone from the educated elites to the laboring masses would have had no choice but to come together as one people and struggle to make his nation better. But once the EU and US offered the bait of immigration and instant-material-improvement, too many non-whites from top to bottom couldn’t resist the temptation to neglect challenges at home and hop on the first train, boat, or plane to move permanently to the West. This had a deeply corrosive and corrupting effect on non-white nations. And it also had a terrible effect on the West as white folks began to be replaced in their own territories and even lose civil liberties on account of PC police deeming any anti-Diversity voice as ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’. The New Disorder corrupted everything.

The fall of the USSR was the last hurrah for the dream of universal nationalism. As Soviet Union dissolved, it brought about the emancipation not only of non-Russian republics but of Warsaw Pact nations that had been occupied by Soviet troops. This was a great time in history but unfortunately short-lived.

It didn’t take long for globalists to swoop down like vultures and spread their hegemony over newly liberated nations. In the name of offering advice and providing aid, the Anglo-Zionist globalists took over entire economies and bought up the national media and politicians.
For globalists, nationalism had been useful as an indispensable weapon in destabilizing and dissolving the USSR. But once the Soviet Empire was gone, the globalists did everything possible to retard the emergence of truly independent nations. They eyed the weak emerging nations as their pawns in the game of global hegemony. Globalists saw the new nations as akin to drowsy animals coming out of hibernation: poor, weak, hungry, and disoriented. What an opportune moment to gain control over them before they gain their footing. What an easy way to turn them into debt slaves to the Jewish globalist bankers.

Mass immigration, cult of Diversity, and neo-imperialist hegemonism destroyed what could have been. Just think of how Third World nations might have done much better from top to bottom IF the West had remained in nationalist mode and blocked easy entry to would-be immigrants. Then, European nations and the US would have remained in better shape with national unity and sense of purpose. And Third World nations would have been ruled by patriotic elites whose main objective would have been to make their own nations great instead of dropping everything to run off to the West to live the good life or rub shoulders with the globo-jetset like the loathsome Fareed Zakaria.